Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation

eia.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 1001 posts

Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation

#191

Post by MyFirstSass »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #129
MyFirstSass wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why hasn't nuclear taken off in China? I keep hearing that it's not cost effective anymore, to slow etc. but if it's actually mostly regulation that's hindering the built out (regardless of the risks) shouldn't China with their impressive portfolio of warpspeed megaprojects have been an ideal example of scaling the next generation of this tech?

China is building nuclear reactors faster than any other country. At the moment, they have 21 new reactors under construction.

Interesting. 21 doesn't seem like much compared to the 300+ there's been in US, 330 in China, 170 in EU etc, until you see theres zero retired units in china compared to large amounts in the rest of the world.

Still though. 21 seems to indicate they are actually betting on something else.

https://globalenergymonitor.org/projects/global-nuclear-powe...

Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation

#192

Post by wolverine876 »

hef19898 wrote: post #71
davkan wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aside from the environmental benefit right? Don’t lots of large ships burn cheaper fuel higher in pollutants when on unregulated wafers?

So? The industry, shipping, agreed on standards and a plan to reduce CO2 emissions. And if you think nuclear power plants on civilian cargo vessels are a good idea,consider the following: - costs for a single ship reactor (shipping is extremely price and cost sensitive) - time, and lost revenue (a ship not carrying cargo is only costing money, see above) for refuelling - piracy and terrorism (I am not really convince…

Also, shipping doesn't have a reputation for operating in the bright sunshine of law and regulation, with expert leadership and engineering. We're not talking about the US Navy building and operating nuclear submarines, led by Navy officers, who have gone through extensive training, have years of experience, a culture of competency, etc.

Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation

#193

Post by cm2187 »

erngkejr wrote: post #54

I was a nuclear engineer for eight years and I left the industry because I felt like I was taking crazy pills. Every time someone says "nuclear is the only practical solution for climate change, it's not possible to build solar or wind fast enough or cheaply enough", you can point them to this press release. All the nuclear supporters I know deal heavily in magical thinking, completely ignoring the factual reality of…

I hear a lot of magical thinking about wind and solar too, with some magical pixie dust solving the intermittence problem but nothing practical being built at scale.

Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation

#194

Post by Wytwwww »

hef19898 wrote: post #159
Wytwwww wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is? > At least if you believe electricity market prices reflect reality I don't see how is this relevant if we're talking specifically about solar. Above ~53° solar production during December is ~20 (to way more than that farther you go north) lower than in December.

And still, PV generated electricity during these periods is priced cheaper on the spot market than nuclear. Funny, right? It is almost as if the parties investing billions and making billions selling and buying electricity figured out the financials behind all that.

> And still, PV generated electricity during these periods is priced cheaper on the spot market than nuclear.

I still don't understand what you're trying to say. It's priced at what the market is willing to pay regardless of the source. How is this relevant?

The variable costs for solar are insignificant so of course you're going to keep the panels turned on and sell the power.

In Northern Europe you can only make money from solar during summer/spring. If you had to overprovision by 10-30 times there is no way it would be financially viable (energy prices would be close to 0 during peaks and you would still barely produce any power during most of winter) without some sort of long term "storage" (maybe hydrogen or something)

Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation

#195

Post by loeg »

cm2187 wrote: post #165
jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seems to me the people saying solar and battery only future do not live in areas that can be cloudy for multiple weeks. Or we've researched it and understand the basics of solar technology. In sunny California solar has a capacity factor of around 25%. In Germany, which is prone to many cloudy days this drops to around 10%. So yes cloudy days have an impact but do not entirely eliminate solar from contention and ce…

Cost of solar in isolation is meaningless. You need to factor in the cost of dealing with its intermittency, i.e. no power at night, variable power during daylight.

Yeah, "1W" of solar generation and 1W of nuclear generation are not interchangeable. There is a subtle sleight of hand in GP's argument.

Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation

#196

Post by wolverine876 »

rjbwork wrote: post #7
ano-ther wrote: post #2

See also: "Georgia nuclear rebirth arrives 7 years late, $17B over cost" https://apnews.com/article/georgia-nuclear-power-plant-vogtl... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla...

Problem is that we don't build the damn things anymore, so each one is bespoke and expensive. Ideally we'd keep building them and develop the expertise and make it a more repeatable scalable process. I worry instead that the lesson taken from this will be "nuclear is too expensive and ineffective".

> Problem is that we don't build the damn things anymore, so each one is bespoke and expensive.

When we built them more often, weren't they bespoke and expensive?

Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation

#197

Post by wolverine876 »

hedora wrote: post #88
erngkejr wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Perhaps they were in France, where the plants are neither bespoke nor expensive. They reuse blueprints, and make use of interchangeable parts, unlike the US nuclear. As a bonus, they can train people once, then transfer them between identical nuclear plants. Also, if there is a near miss at one plant, they apply the safety upgrades to the whole fleet.

How much did they cost in France? How much do they cost?

> They reuse blueprints, and make use of interchangeable parts, unlike the US nuclear. As a bonus, they can train people once, then transfer them between identical nuclear plants. Also, if there is a near miss at one plant, they apply the safety upgrades to the whole fleet.

That all sounds good as a first impression, but I've learned to ask: Are those the primary bottlenecks and costs?

Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation

#198

Post by credit_guy »

klipklop wrote: post #63

Seems to me the people saying solar and battery only future do not live in areas that can be cloudy for multiple weeks. I didn’t run the math but I’m guessing it’s not feasible to build a battery pack large enough to ride out winter in some areas. The SF Bay Area, sure, but I suspect blackouts will be common in solar+battery only areas. A preferred solution would be a mix of both with nuclear handling disruptions due…

Nuclear power plants are currently too expensive to not be used at 100% all the time (except when you need to perform maintenance). Some nuclear power plants are designed to be able to load follow, but in practice they don't do it.

Batteries will never be cheap enough to allow for seasonal storage. They are good for day-to-night storage. For seasonal fluctuations, the best you can do is natural gas. If we convert all our energy to solar, wind, hydro, and natural gas for peaker plants, we'd be comfortably net negative. In fact, right now in the US the CO2 absorption by forests is equal to all the emissions produced by the natural gas power plants (which are mostly used full time, not in peaker mode). Of course, the US produces a lot of emissions from transportation and industry. But they can be electrified in time, and the coal power plants can be eliminated, and the natural gas plants kept as peaker plants only.

The path to net zero, or net negative, does not strictly speaking need nuclear energy.

I personally am a huge fan of nuclear, but I acknowledge that it is not really needed to fight climate change.

Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation

#199

Post by mcint »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #57
MichaelNolan wrote: post #14

If I was a betting man, I would put money down that Vogtle 4 is the last nuclear reactor that gets built in the US. Solar and batteries are just too cheap for nuclear to compete. The world will be installing a terawatt of solar capacity per year soon. *excluding research or military reactors of course.

> The new 1,114 megawatt (MW) Unit 3 reactor joins two existing reactors It's indeed not a lot. At a great cost. That kind of is the point. Nuclear is very costly. Solar, wind, battery storage, and other cheap alternatives are indeed being rolled out at a plural orders of magnitude larger scale.

Nuclear is costly _now_*. It wasn't getting built, for years. There is so much energy to be had from that, and cost learning curves can come down. France's ("small") modular reactors, SMR, they even aim to sell internationally, in their 2030 plan, are a model. To China no less.

China also builds nuclear reactors, and we can't fall behind them. I cannot abide an SMR gap.

Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation

#200

Post by Joeri »

Exoristos wrote: post #20
ano-ther wrote: post #2

See also: "Georgia nuclear rebirth arrives 7 years late, $17B over cost" https://apnews.com/article/georgia-nuclear-power-plant-vogtl... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla...

Surely much of the crippling cost is due to hostile lawfare and regulation.

Regulation is actually not a large driver for nuclear project cost overruns according to this MIT study: https://news.mit.edu/2020/reasons-nuclear-overruns-1118
Post reply on HN